External works including parking reconfiguration and new pedestrian crossing; new shopfront to western elevation; reconfiguration of rear ramped access; creation of three door openings; formation of loading bay; and raised plant deck.

The glorious development that was the removal of the barriers to Clifton Backies has revealed another problem: the green light (or phase, as highways engineers call it) for pedestrians and cyclists crossing from the east side of Water Lane to the west side of Water Lane just south of the junction with Green Lane has been dialled down to the absolute minimum. I swear it used to be a leisurely five seconds or so, allowing for parents with buggies to amble and cyclists to roll across with little fuss - their reward for having waited their turn to cross. Now however it's more like a blink-and-wasn't-that-light-green-a-second-ago two seconds: you glimpse the long-awaited green, start moving off and before you've even travelled a metre, it has disappeared.

I know why this has happened: this junction gets really congested, particularly at peak times, largely because the new housing being built nearby was seemingly given the go-ahead without any consideration for the impact that it would have on the road network. Doubtless the Council has received a series of irate communications from frustrated motorists, and Council officers have responded not by acknowledging maybe giving permission to dozens of houses without considering the transport implications wasn't such a good idea, but rather by depriving cyclists and pedestrians of valuable seconds on their 'phase' of the crossing. It's utterly pointless, of course. I very much doubt these seconds 'solve' the congestion experienced by motorists, or whether they even have any real impact. But losing them does have a real impact for pedestrians and cyclists, who are pretty much guaranteed to find themselves in the stressful situation of being stranded on the crossing without a green light reassuring them they're safe.

It's horribly undemocratic too: the decision to deprive pedestrians and cyclists this reassurance of being able to cross safely was, like other traffic light timing decisions in York, made without consulting pedestrians and cyclists. Rather, it was decided by a lone highways officer that motorists were being unduly impeded, they should therefore have longer green phases, and this time should come out of the pedestrian/cyclist phase. So much for the Council's transport hierarchy, which puts pedestrians and cyclists respectively at the top. So yeah, this is something to discuss with the Council...

They are proposing to expand the car park by adding 45 car parking spaces along the service road that crosses the Tins.

Transport Statement section 5.2.5 describes a set of measures to create proper visibility splays at the crossing of the Tins and reinforce the give-way markings for drivers. This sounded great...

However, Appendix D several diagrams and some of them show give-way markings being painted on the cycleway in addition to the service road.

In contrast, the existing situation is that the Tins is continuous and the give-way markings are painted on the service road.

This may only be a mistake in some of the diagrams, it does not appear to be mentioned in the text, but we must object that these diagrams show an interruption of the Tins and a degradation of the cycleway.

Waterloo and South Bank is experiencing significant development and economic growth. This brings both benefits and challenges, including increased pressure on infrastructure and the public realm.

To understand the public realm Improvement needs of the area better and to prioritise and direct resources, Lambeth Council has worked with urban design and public realm consultants, Publica, to develop a Draft Public Realm Framework.

The Framework provides an assessment of the existing public realm and identifies opportunities for improvement across Bishop’s Ward, Lambeth. Based on a rigorous baseline audit of streets and spaces, it establishes six guiding principles to shape better placemaking. These principles inform and infuse 18 location specific spatial briefs that describe the type of improvements that should be considered in each location.

The Draft Public Realm Framework is intended to underpin the Lambeth Local Plan and other strategic documents, provide direction to the public and private sector, help secure support and funding from a variety of public and private sources, and act as a springboard for the improvement and investment necessary to support growth, resilience, independence and place.

The Sutton local area committee has agreed for officers to carry out improvements outside Homefield preparatory school in Western Road at its junction with Tate Road. Funding for the scheme has been secured from Transport for London (TfL) to address concerns raised by the school regarding unacceptable traffic speeds and difficulty in crossing the road outside the school.

Highways officers have met with school representative to assess these issues and a preliminary improvement scheme has been drawn as shown on the attached plan which aims to address concerns regarding traffic speeds and pedestrian safety. The scheme is fully supported by the school.

The scheme proposes to change the priority at Western Road junction with Tate Road and introduce a raised table with a kerb build-out to assist pupils and parents to cross the road and to help reduce traffic speeds outside the school. The scheme also includes re-arranging and providing additional ‘school keep clear’ markings and installation of red/yellow pencil bollards.

Whilst there were no pedestrian accidents recorded at the location in the last three years, the proposed measures will improve pedestrian safety and thus promote walking as a sustainable mode of travel.

I've read that there are to be roadworks on the B1049 in Histon at the Green, which means temporary traffic lights and the closure of the end of Impington Lane. I can't find many details but the local HisImp News paper says it is starting 8th April for 8 weeks.

I'm concerned about cycle & pedestrian access to Impington Lane from the B1049 during this period and whether access will have been fully considered. Turning onto Impington Lane coming from the South normally quite dangerous as the road is narrow (hopefully to be improved by the works!)

Few people who live in the area will be happy with the situation on The Avenues. A couple of years ago the city won a grant to improve cycle routes around the city, called a “Cycle City Ambition Grant”. The first route to be improved was the one that came along the Avenues, known as the “Pink” route. After two years of planning, public meetings and proposals we are left with the dangerous inadequate mess we see today.

Why is The Avenues Special?

Far more bikes use The Avenues than any other road in the city, "nearly 700,000 in 2016 according to the Air Quality Status Report for 2018. Most are students at UEA or workers at the Hospital and Research Parks. It’s also the route hundreds of children should be using to cycle to the City Academy School, so the potential number of cyclists could be even higher if the road were not so dangerous. Logically it should have been the highest priority for providing proper cycle tracks, but it didn’t turn out like that.

Why is it bad?

The road markings only allow enough space for one direction of flow on a two way street, so if it needs to pass traffic has to drive in the cycle lanes and when it gets busy the cycle lane simply disappear. There is basically far too much traffic for this type of design.

Why did we end up with this mess?

That’s a good question but there are clues, take a look on Tombland and the expensive paving around the cathedral gate. All this meant there just wasn’t enough money left to build the proposed cycle tracks and the present botch is the result. The council decided that the cost of doing The Avenues didn’t represent good value for money, yet doing Tombland did. This is a very suspect situation which has left us with an unacceptable, dangerous mess that simply can’t be left as it is.

This appears to be a busy crossing, and is used by parents and children heading to and from the school, both by cycle and on foot.

The chicane barriers make it difficult to cross here with a standard bicycle, let alone a cargo bike or trailer. The cross-hatched area is much more practical to use than the island, but leaves users exposed on a fast road, especially considering that primary-school children are likely to be using this facility.

On the western side, there is nowhere to wait to cross, so riders with large cycles an trailers have to block the path for other users whilst they wait to cross.

This is outside the area of the Cherry Hinton North development, but both motor and cycle traffic through here is likely to increase when that is completed, so it is somewhat related.

There are better-than-average cycle paths either side of this junction, but actually crossing at this point is very difficult because there is a near-constant stream of vehicular traffic leaving the roundabout to head into town.

Residents and traders have told us that there are issues with fly tipping and market access on Walworth Place, near the junction with East Street.

Following the award of funding by Borough, Bankside & Walworth Community Council in 2018, we are proposing to carry out some highway improvements on the northern section of Walworth Place. Along with the relocation of the existing waste compactor to a nearby alterative location, the proposed changes will improve the area by preventing fly tipping from taking place, as well as providing extra space for additional market stalls.

The plan below presents the proposed interventions to be introduced at Walworth Place, which will include:-

The use of 6 lockable bollards that will prevent vehicles from parking or entering the Northern Section of Walworth Place during market hours, which will provide a safe area for market traders and pedestrians.

Removal of existing permit holder only bays which will be replaced with one time restricted loading only bay.

Footway refurbishment between East Street and Bronti Close.

We would appreciate your views on these proposals, and whether there are any additional approaches we could take.

Why We Are Consulting

We would be grateful if you could take the time to review the proposal attached below and let us know what you think using the online questionnaire by 15 April.

Your views are really important to help us make sure the final design meets the needs of the local community.

From 18th February to mid June, Guilford Street will be one-way westbound from Grays Inn Road to Grenville Street for the replacement of a 32" gas main. Eastbound traffic will be diverted via Theobalds Road and Roseberry Avenue but cyclists will be better off using Tavistock Place and Ampton Street (CS6). Note that Guilford Street is already permanently one-way westbound west of Grenville Street. At the same time, a raised junction will be insatlled at Guilford Place.

Updated 22/5/19: Works now extended till end May and new closure due to work on the Great Ormond Street Hospital building. As well as a new gas main, works include electricity and water.

We are planning a treasure hunt for the 2019 Cambridge Festival of Cycling in September.

The idea is to produce a pocket-size, attractively-produced booklet with a suggested route and clues to solve, items to collect and so on, which will be sold for a modest price. There would be a prize.

This topic is a place to discuss ideas for this. I (David Earl) will be taking the lead in getting this together. Roxanne and Anna are seeking funding partners.

If you'd like to help, please say so in the thread.

Just one thing though - please don't put clue suggestions or answers here! If you do chances are people taking part will have read them, which rather spoils the fun.

These proposals are part of a wider TfL programme to encourage people to choose to cycle or walk in Enfield, which is being implemented by Enfield Council in partnership with us. We would like to hear your views on the proposals.

What are we proposing?

We propose to upgrade the existing staggered pedestrian crossing on the northern arm of the junction between Lincoln Road and the A10. The crossing would be made wider and would become a toucan crossing, enabling cyclists to use it as well. The existing zebra crossing on the western arm of Lincoln Road would become a parallel cycle/zebra crossing.

Some areas of footway would be widened to enable people to access to both crossings more easily. The changes to the footway would mean that the entrance to the residential access road which joins Lincoln Road at the junction with the A10 would become narrower, and exiting vehicles would be asked to give way to any vehicles wishing to enter.

See the website link for details including drawings and to submit comments.

Enfield Cycling Campaign intends to submit a considered response after discussion.

Hello, I'm wondering how many other Cambridge cyclists have shared the experience I've had (about once per month now) regarding a particular elderly lady who insists that bikes are not allowed on the "footpath" adjacent to the Trumpington allotments, between Shelford Rd & the new busway in CB2. This path seems clearly demarcated as a shared pedestrian-cycle path on the cycle maps provided at the council link (below). However, it is not clearly labeled as such on the path itself, leading her to become quite angry with any cyclist who gets near her & her dog while they're out walking (and obstructing the path to underscore her point). "It's a footpath" she yells, and storms away.
So my questions are 1) am I correct in interpreting the council map (below) as permitting bikes on this path and 2) how might one go about requesting proper signage, clearly saying bikes & pedestrians are both welcome?
Thanks for any feedback, Robert
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/documents/cambridge-cycling-map.pdf

Proposal
To investigate the purchase of land adjacent to the Bristol Bath Railway Path (BBRP) to provide a link to the Dings Railway Path which connects to Temple Meads station.

Rationale
The BBRP is one of Britain’s busiest off-road pedestrian and cycle paths with over 5000 people using it daily. The current link to Bristol Temple Meads is via St Phillips Road and Horton Street, both of which can be heavily trafficked with vehicles travelling at speed. A continuation of an off road route into Temple Meads would be very popular and help achieve the Local Enterprise Site aims for sustainable transport.

When cycling along western park road towards mutley. On sections that have speed bumps without the traffic islands/bollards, car/taxi drivers dangerously position their cars (across both lanes) at speed to avoid the speed bumps. Friday & Saturday nights is the worst time with the taxi's.

This section of the flagship National Cycle Network Route 1 on entering Ipswich is of particularly poor quality. There are nettles, brambles and other bushes overgrowning the very rough and narrow path. Is this really the quality of cycling that we want to show to Dutch cyclists coming over from the Netherlands who would have expected there to be a tarmaced cycle path that's a couple of metres wide. There is space to here to place a good surface.

Significant domestic car parking in the advisory cycle lane of westbound lane combines with heavy traffic jams to obstruct/block westbound passage to cyclists in rush hour. Generally there is a section of this route where pavement pushing is unavoidable

This proposed Maple Cross to Shepherd Primary School cycle route follows the existing Maple Cross to Rickmansworth route as far as the Long Lane/Eastwick Crescent junction in Mill End.

The new part of the route consists of:
* Part of the new Long Lane residential service road.
* Part of Kenwood Drive.
* Part of the old Long Lane road.
* Rickmansworth Footpath 012 (upgraded to a bridleway).
* Beresford Road.
* Part of Penn Road.
* Part of the south east path through King George V Playing Fields, Mill End.
* The pathway leading to the new pedestrian entrance to Shepherd Primary School, near its cycle parking area.

Twice in the past week I have been cycling up St Johns to make a rh turn onto Cauldwell Hall and nearly been taken out by a driver taking the corner too fast as they travel north bound along Cauldwell Hall and turn down St Johns Rd.
The problems are too fast traffic on Cauldwell Hall and poor design at that junction , need an island to separate traffic.

I propose the creation of bike/bus scheme: a bus service for Sundays and Bank holidays leaving Cambridge Rail Station, heading out through Barton Road and linking Burwash Manor, Wimpole Hall, Gamlingay Woods, Great Gransden Woods etc in a circular route. Short cycle routes to be developed around villages along the route. Cyclists can choose the length of journey they want to make and be assured of a ride home by bus if they do not wish to cycle back to Cambridge...

A 24 cycle bike-trailer can be towed behind a 20 seater bus, providing sustainable tourism access to South Cambridgeshire and passenger transport services for settlements that do not currently have Sunday services. Please respond and state whether you would be interested in such a service.

When cycling west bound from Rope Walk into Eagle Street through the cycle filter (where cyclists are unaffected by the traffic signals except giving way to the traffic from the left), the width between the bollard and the kerb and the sudden left movement required make the travel through the junction more difficult especially when using bikes with trailers, cargo bikes. Ordinary bike users also find it difficult to use and will avoid it instead.

I am bringing up the problem that cyclists and pedestrians have crossing East Road to get to ARU and the neighbouring residential area. It would be helpful have a discussion about how to create safe routes in this area and how to get them implemented.

When I am cycling, I find it dangerous and difficult to cross East Road from Petersfield or Bradmore Street and I resort to using the pedestrian crossings with my bike because it is.
This area that really needs addressing for improvements to safe cycling and I don’t understand why given the expansion of ARU this has not been addressed.

The junction of Mill Road/East Road is also pretty scary for cyclists and pedestrians. The crossing at the slip road at the corner of Petersfield is difficult for pedestrians because it has no traffic controls and cars come quickly round this corner making it dangerous for anyone who is not alert , who is not tall enough to see, or who can't move quickly. This includes the young, the old, someone in a wheelchair. I wouldn't fancy pushing a child in a buggy across either.
Basically, it seems to me that the Junction and East road are designed for motor vehicles and traffic flow not for pedestrians and cyclists. Can we try and address this?

It would be useful to have signage at this location to show the route onto the cycle path. Coming north along Lochend Road from the A8/Airport it is not clear that you need to head into the treatment works access road to see the path leading onto the main cycle path.

The route from E&C southbound is in Southwark (to Dulwich) then is in Lambeth (Turney Road, Rosendale Road/Thurlow Park Road, Hamilton Road, to Gipsy Hill), then goes back into Southwark (from Gipsy Hill to Crystal Palace). Southwark had their part of the quietway consultation approved.

Lambeth delayed their decision to June 2017, and was then subsequently “called in” as there was widespread concerns from both the local community and cycling groups for parts of the route. Cycling groups unanimously objected to the proposed design along Gipsy Hill by: Southwark Cyclists, Lambeth Cyclists and Wheels for Wellbeing. 70% of respondents objected to the the design on Gipsy Hill. Gipsy Hill is a busy Local Distributor Road and bus route. Gipsy Hill has “insufficient road width” for a segregated track. The original proposed design meant motor vehicles “will encroach on the advisory cycle lane” to allow oncoming motor vehicles to pass.

Gipsy Hill Options:
There are alterative options to avoid Gipsy Hill. Southwark Cyclists have supported the design option to follow LCN23 downhill all the way along Dulwich Wood Avenue and then using the other side of Long Meadow (so not using Gipsy Hill), with a new track behind the bus stop.

See navy dashed line on sketch attached (mauve was the proposed Q7 design, red is LCN23)

This design is quieter and safer than using Gipsy Hill, and avoids the proposed dangerous junction Gipsy Hill/ Dulwich Wood Avenue, near the rail station. This integrated design also allows greatest cycle access to local amenities, schools, shops, and parks in Dulwich, West Dulwich and West Norwood. There is interest and outline support from Southwark to explore this option.

Next Steps:
Lambeth are now actively progressing engagement and revised designs for their part of the route, with a new consultation process due in September. There is potential for an improved option at Gipsy Hill, but this is likely to need new additional funding from TfL.

What are Quietway?
London Cycling Design Standards, Chapter 1 (page 15):
Quietways “..are aimed at new cyclists who want a safe, unthreatening experience.” The key principles for Quietways include:
o Routes should be on the quietest available roads consistent with directness;
o Routes should be as straight and direct as possible;
o where they have to join busier roads, or pass through busy, complicated junctions, segregation must be provided;
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter1-designrequirements.pdf

Camden Cyclists we propose to send a response to this consultation on behalf of our members. This will focus only on the part within Camden (the section between Charterhouse Street and Euston Road - as detailed on the map attached). But note that the alignment of the route north of Greville Street is not agreed between Camden and TfL and is not formally considered a part of the consultation.

So it makes sense to have two discussion threads for the sections in Camden south and north of Greville Street.

Campaign for a 300m section of the unguided busway between Milton Road and the pedestrian and cyclists access at the end of Nuffield Close to be built as a road, providing a more direct access for lorries and cars to the trading estate.

Nuffield Road’s residential section should then be cut-off for motorised through traffic just past Discovery Way, turning the first part of Nuffield Road into a residential close.